If there's a thread like this, sorry. I looked before creating it, though.
------------------------

I watched "The Lords of Salem" the other day, and it really brought this question to light for me because I think Rob Zombie has a very specific idea about what evil really is. I started wondering - how do/should we define bad and good?

Any fight that has ever broken out, from my perspective, was caused by one trying to force change where it was unneeded. And I realize I am just one person who only knows their own experiences. But if you find you agree with it, maybe I'm on to something.

I think that perhaps, as one user told me once, any source of violent behavior is caused by ignorance on the violent being's behalf. I don't think and would hope that they never MEAN to cause a fight. They're simply doing what they know how to do. And I believe most human beings can and should know how to respect each others differences. Those who don't cause problems for other people. With this belief, I would go so far as to say there IS no such thing as "bad," because to be "bad" means to merely be ignorant (or have some kind of illness that prohibits you from understanding what it is to have respect for others as well as yourself.) And any wrongdoing is completely unintentional. If, for example, you're a great looking guy with tons of money, a failure to accept anyone unlike yourself might result in you beating up the homeless. 0_o I think that failure to accept differences is what "bad" really is.

As far as good goes, I'd imagine it's just the opposite of being "bad," but this is not something I've put very much thought into. Theoretically speaking, if it's the opposite, maybe it means having a ton of knowledge, and being able to actually help others as a result because you understand how they could be helped. In short, I believe that whether you behave well or badly possibly depends on how much or how little you know.

Remember, this is all theoretical. So if you start harping on me, I'll have no choice but to think you're a "bad" person.

Good and bad, to me, are so intertwined that it's sometimes hard to figure out the difference. Good to me is a positive outcome of your decision while bad is a negative outcome of your decision. All decisions have a positive and negative outcome, it's just which decision has the better outcome for you.

Bad - You are worse off having encountered the situation, person, etc.
Good - You are better off having encountered the situation, person, etc.

Something not being bad doesn't make it good and vice versa. I don't have the you-are-either-with-me-or-against-me mindset and I don't understand it. There is vast neutral middle ground in which you are neither better off nor worse off. Of course, there is also the issue of balancing things that leave you better off in some ways and worse off in others, but this is just the very bare-bones, crude definitions.

I don't believe a person can be good or bad, only that their actions are good or bad, and their actions are based on the circumstances.

Bad - You are worse off having encountered the situation, person, etc.
Good - You are better off having encountered the situation, person, etc.

Something not being bad doesn't make it good and vice versa. I don't have the you-are-either-with-me-or-against-me mindset and I don't understand it. There is vast neutral middle ground in which you are neither better off nor worse off. Of course, there is also the issue of balancing things that leave you better off in some ways and worse off in others, but this is just the very bare-bones, crude definitions.

I don't believe a person can be good or bad, only that their actions are good or bad, and their actions are based on the circumstances.

I agree there is a neutral way to be. I think most people are - maybe neutral, in regards to my theory, describes someone who can accept others differences while only really tending to themselves. But all of this is still pretty up in the air for me at the moment.

In other words, you don't have to UNDERSTAND everyone. You do, however, need to accept and respect them.

To everyone telling me or planning to tell me that "bad" is something that hurts people and "good" is something that makes them happy, I'm looking for what makes it bad or good in the first place - not the outcome it produces, if that makes any sense.

Bad - You are worse off having encountered the situation, person, etc.
Good - You are better off having encountered the situation, person, etc.

Something not being bad doesn't make it good and vice versa. I don't have the you-are-either-with-me-or-against-me mindset and I don't understand it. There is vast neutral middle ground in which you are neither better off nor worse off. Of course, there is also the issue of balancing things that leave you better off in some ways and worse off in others, but this is just the very bare-bones, crude definitions.

I don't believe a person can be good or bad, only that their actions are good or bad, and their actions are based on the circumstances.

I agree there is a neutral way to be. I think most people are - maybe neutral, in regards to my theory, describes someone who can accept others differences while only really tending to themselves. But all of this is still pretty up in the air for me at the moment.

In other words, you don't have to UNDERSTAND everyone. You do, however, need to accept and respect them.

To everyone telling me or planning to tell me that "bad" is something that hurts people and "good" is something that makes them happy, I'd appreciate you going a little bit more in depth about the two terms if you can. I'm looking for what makes it bad or good in the first place - not the outcome it produces.

Yup. I also believe that if you aren't completely aware of the goodness or badness of something, that doesn't change the fact that you are better off or worse off and, thus, doesn't make it bad or good solely due to what you are or aren't aware of. That is simply a mistake in judgment/perception and doesn't affect the overall badness or goodness of something.

the idea of good and bad come from the persons perspective ... there perspective comes from the way in which they view the world, society, community and the self ... that is all affected by the journey ... its a contemplative place of being.

It think that there's no such thing as good and evil, only what we see as right or wrong, in this case we humans see helping others as the right thing to do, because we evolved to be social creatures who help others, so that we one day we might get the favour back.

The same thing with other species, they have their own view of what's right or wrong.

For example, if a new dominant male lion takes over in a group it will kill the cubs of the previous dominant male, this behaviour is seen as "evil" by us humans but for the lion it's the right thing to do, so that it can spread it's genes to the next generation.

There have been experiments with babies on the subject of right and wrong where they were subject to a play where there is one evil doll and one good,
the good one always helped the evil one, but the evil one always hindered the good one from doing things like climbing a latter etc. afterwards the babies got the opportunity to play with the dolls, 9 out of 10 times the child picked up the good doll to play with and some of the babies even hit the bad doll.

So in the human minds there might exist good and bad but there is not such thing as "universal moralism".

I agree with the assumption that in order to do good things you have to be at least a bit knowledgable on the subject before you handle it.